Do NOT Blow Your Entire Budget on Two Channel Audio

Stereo versus atmos is like the childish discussion between turntables versus dac or between S.S. and tubes amp...

😁

Ignorance drive the wheel and "tastes"...

For me it is low cost /S.Q. ratio and acoustic...

Try science and read what say an acoustician : BACCH FILTERS....

We dont live in the same budget... 😊

Will you also spend 80,000 on the musical albums?

I did if i count all my life spending on music... But my audio expanse are nowhere near that and i dont need more than 1000 bucks to assemble a top system for my needs.. My acoustic homemade room cost me nothing... And as i already said atmos and other dsp are not an acoustic revolution in music listening , BACCH filters are...Because even if it is compatible with atmos it is stereo based anyway as all albums i listened to recorded in stereo...

All this opinionated discussion is on shaky acoustic ground... Because no one dare to read Dr, Choueri explanation...  Stereo is enough with BACCH filters , and if someone had atmos he can use BACCH filters to improve it...

 The only acoustic revolution is BACCH filters... inform yourself... Atmos or stereo is not the problem AT ALL...

It is not really a question of finances these days because i know a lot of guys who will drop 80k on a truck clean and easy ( i.e. for a chunk of metal on wheels that will take a guy from point a to point b, whoop di doo). I’ll nix the 80k for a goofyass truck and spend it on such a rig...makes me happier...( different priorities)

You are right about 3-D holography being more stupendous than stereo...But using based objects audio as atmos is very different than using BACCH filters...

I will stay with 2 speakers and this is why i favored the most natural approach by BACCH filters... way less costlier too...And natural because by mathematical acoustic priciple there is no timbre degradation when playing recorded original acoustic of any stereo albums through our stereo system with the BACCH ...

3-D acoustic dont need many speakers and any other DSP than BACCH filters...

@invalid

re " When you listen to live music, the musicians are in front of you, not all around you. Sounds like a gatekeeping money grab to me."

That is just a practical limitation of delivering live music to an audience.

But why do we have to be limited to that when Atmos can put us sitting in the midst of a String quartet.

Not a gimmick, a paradigm shift !

i am a dinausaurs too... I dont use phone for movies, music, and texting or for any computer use...

I like phone for calls necessities ONLY..

I own a old flap phone because it is smaller and indestructible from 15 years ago...

Seeing people on phone all around me revulse me...

I come from a world where you were speaking to people around you in priority.,..

The most advanced civilization are way over technology... It is a threshold to pass after autodestruction tentation or attempts... 😊

To stay in this thread matter boundaries "spectacular" is not "musical"... The way we acoustically recorded classical music , be it Indian raga or Beethoven symphonies, has nothing to do with "spectacular" effects...It is supposed to be musical...

3/d acoustic is not surround object based audio... We can conciliate the two but the aim is different ...It is why i stay in 3/D stereo...

I stream on my PC as I flat won’t put up with UIs based on a phone, so that makes internal streamers and even boxes irrelevant to me. Old guy who makes, get this novel use, PHONE CALLS from my phone. Yes, we are a dying breed.

Very wise and interesting post indeed thanks for the reading...

You forgot one thing, and it is not a criticism from me just a rare fact and possibility you did forgot to mention ...

Some products of the past were some flagship among the best in the world...They created a sound experience of their own and were never redesigned again as it was...

My AKG K340 is exactly the case... When optimized it beat most headphone save the very costlier top ...It cost me 100 bucks... I wrote a review of 30 pages about it ... 😊

My amplifier a Sansui alpha from 35 years ago in a lesser degree is a product of high quality even with today standards and he cost me 300 bucks....

I tried last week to upgrade it with one of the best contemporary amplifier for headphone for my K340 a very well reviewed one ... It was a disaster for me ...I returned it...The Sansui alpha is not obsolete in this coupling at all even from the headphone out...This speak a lot about his design quality...I must say to give justice to the "upgrading" amplier brand that the K340 is probably one of the most hard headphones to drive well...Too picky and not only hungry...If they are not fede well you loose his potential S.Q.  AKG was a microphones designer they created this hybrid  as they created their TOP microphones line , and anyway headphone are reverse microphone or the opposite... No other company after that ever bother to create a son complex and costly design for headphone...This is what a Top russian headphone designer said to me...

Coupling the two, the Sansui alpha and the K340 give me audiophile top experience for peanuts... Anyway i never listened anything better by a good margin... On almost all acoustic counts..

Then....

Price tag is a deception most of the times as the UNIQUE indication of S.Q. quality because material design quality is one thing but sound quality is not linearly related to it the way most people imagine .......Material design quality matter for sure but it is not synonym of sound quality...

It is not an absolute essential unique indication for audiophile experience conditions which implied synergy between chosen gear FIRST and SECOND acoustic, mechanical and electrical precise well embeddings of the system parts into one another and also in the room/house/ specific ears relation and grid...

Use a low cost flagship of the past and embed it well and the result may be as in my case top audiophile experience... Because a MINIMAL quality treshold of sound experience quality exist objectively and subjectively...

There are LOTS of affordable products that perform right on the edge of the most expensive esoteric units. By affordable, I mean what most working adults are willing to pay if the sound is worth the price. That means a used Sony table radio for some. A used Yamaha receiver and a pair of Elac or Warfdales for others. It may mean a lot more. Careful used shopping can of course pay off.

If I were to define the minimum of what I consider true high end sound excluding prestige or hearing damage level playback, I might suggest:

Audiolab 6000 integrated, Sonas Faber Luminna IIs, SMSL Do300 DAC, Monoprice sub. Some kind of streamer, Wiim or what ever that thing is. Cables form Monoprice, Amazon etc. I venture that is 99.9% of what is possible. That last .1% is a real bugger. Real, but hard.

That is still several thousand dollars which is a lot of real money to most of us, but it is actually high fidelity. Is the IOTA or similar as smooth sounding as the Autiolab? Or spend a bit more for a Hegel? You hit the diminishing returns real fast. Mojo or Aries DAC worth it? How far short is a JDS Atom amp from the most exotic headphones amp? Not much. Is a $9000 preamp any better sounding than $109? I would not bet on it. Prettier. Nicer feel. More inputs. Maybe your choice of masking distortion. But not more neutral. I do sort of miss the masking of my Nakamichi preamp with it’s tone controls. Nostalgia maybe.

Unfortunately prestige, looks, and ego drive the high end market. Usually you do get great sound. Some of it real, much of it placebo. Both making you happy. Hopefully you get reliability. Want a lifetime amp? Buy a Mac or Bryston. Billet aluminum cases don’t sound any better. Braid over a power cord does not improve imaging. VU meters are eye candy only. No amount of user end electronics can make the source better. They can only degrade it. Some degradation is considered to be "musical". Some is not. Some is a tradeoff we are willing to make not to get a different defect. Personal preference.

Yea, I would put a set of $50,000 speakers on a RadioShack receiver and the next best dollar spent would probably be better speakers, it there actually are any.

I navigated between the dead end of " cheap satisfaction" and the bottomless pit of "perfection" in sound...

My real hobby was learning how to navigate it... For most people buying the right gear or trying the more pieces of gear possible is the definition of this hobby... For me this hobby after we had pick the gear is working on the way to embed it rightfully in the mechanical, acoustical and electrical dimensions...When this is well done we have music...

My experiments in mechanical, electrical and acoustic embeddings of well chosen good low cost gear was my joy in learning...

I thank God because if i had the money i will had bought 100,000 bucks of audio component and called it job done...Without the need to learn acoustic nor the necessary creativity to make my experiments and homemade devices...But it was that the fun and satisfying part not purchasing..

Without money i go studying and experimenting...

I am done now and happy, more than if i had the 100,000 bucks audio system; because the one i had is very good but above all it is really mine, my optimization and tweaks and homemade works...

My only upgrade would be the BACCH filters... But it cost 10 times my actual system... Perhaps in the future... Now i am in ectasy at each music listening and i am busy listening all music ...

Audio is really based on knowledge and experiments not on price tag... Even if for sure costlier system can beat mine....

The joy of creating is greater than the joy of purchasing... And anyway my system is way less far off from very costlier one than anybody can imagine...

To reach them really it only lack the BACCH filters...

😉

Price tags dont means audiophile experience; the right gear synergy in an acoustic space means audiophile experience...

That’s what I believe too, but I see some members here with pricey stuff in crazy rooms that seem pretty happy.

Vintage proven high quality products of the past...

I bought my 1987 Sansui alpha 300 dollars , it sell over 1000 bucks, some higher models sell at many , many thiousands dollars after all this time , mine  now after 35 years is always sought for , guess why ?

Read his description and reviews ...

My hybrid AKG K340 headphone payed 100 bucks rival any headphone i listened to and beat them...To upgrade i need a Susvara or any very costly headphone and even that i am too afraid to upgrade it because it is such good and with a completely unique holographic sound "out of the head"  and i will die with it,...Or buy another one...

This is my main system...

Inform yourself about some products and buy it used....Simple...

A flagship of the past is not necessarily obsolete...A Bugatti 1934 is not obsolete compared to a Veyron model...

Buy a pair of vintage Tannoy dual concentric  gold 15 inches and install them in a designed for them acoustic room and call that your audio journey...

The only costly upgrade after that it is BACCH filters 😁 But you know already that and my opinion  ...😊

Price tags dont means audiophile experience; the right gear synergy in an acoustic space means audiophile experience...

i am envious of no one even from those with better and costlier system than mine ... Why ?

Because there is a minimal  treshold of quality , a minimal or optimal one for EACH acoustic factors... When you are there you listen music in ectasy ... Upgrading appear a bit preposterous even if it is possible ...And it is...

Question, can you actually buy high quality components without an exorbitant budget?

I live through the same experience :desktop audio...

I did not lack anything really... I am not frustrated at all by the minimalistic system in hios acoustic corner and well embedded  electrically ...

My sound is immersive...

I have small speakers i modified ...

My main sacred audiophile system is headphone , but the small speakers are just behind it and beat all headphone i ever listened to save my K340 main audiophile system...

Desktop audio can be very rewarding and it’s usually much more affordable than typical 2 channel audiophile systems.

My initial foray into desktop audio: Laptop into xDuoo TA-30 (tube) or my Astell&Kern SP2000T (SS) DAP (digital audio player used for both desktop and portable). My headphones are Focal Clear and Audeze LCDi4.

Not working on surround sound now, farthest I got was Anthem units minimum quality and Trinnov seems like the very best processor. Currently working on optimizing my Ethernet chain: audiophile switch, cables, filters - not easy to keep a lid on the costs.

What is that ?

Oups! i dont stream my apology...

😁😊

You mix things...😊

Blackberry and Iphone it is phone MASS market : the same market...

Cd and streaming or ripping etc: it is MASS music files market : the same market...

Audiophiles are not defined by being MERELY in the mass market... These two are different targetting market...

For sure technology is evolving which IMPLIED some mid level convergence between mass market and audiophile market ... The mass market audio becoming more "audiophile" by the technological improvement progress and the audiophiles market becoming less costlier for the same reason... But these two market the mass market and the audiophile market will stay distinct for the decades to come... Why ?

Because music is not sound, and sound is not music ; even if they are not separable they are very distinctive...

Then one market does not replace the other they COEXIST for different goal and different reasons...

 Then we are not all designed by our audio history and taste from  the same "plaster mold"... We are all different and a solution for one is an impediment for another one...

I own no iphone... 😊

@mahgister

One market does not replace the others...

What about the Blackberry being relaced with the iPhone?

The CD being replaced by streaming?

 

There is a market for any consumers demand...

One market does not replace the others...

Most high end  consumers and music listener invest less time in movies and more in music... ( anyway how many non stupid movies comes from Hollywood ? Some not many )

I listen any non american movies when i listened to one, at least  doing so i learn at least something about other cultures... And i am tired of Hollywood pastiches...

Spectacular CGI matter less for me than intelligent content , then in audio  as in movie, I prefer music to sound at the end...

I invested way more in books and music than in movies... I dont need atmos for movies and for music  only 2 speakers or one headphone is needed...

I am a dinosaurus...

My only phone is a flapping one from 15 years ago with almost no screen and almost no computing abilities... ( phone are useful read me right but i hate them more than i use them )

😊

High End sound means "natural Timbre " first... ( then optimal dynamic and transient, optimal balanced sound etc are necessary for this because timbre is a "musical" concept and an acoustic one not a DSP one ) ....

Then it means 3-D holographical imaging, soundstaging ... ( BACCH filters does not degrade "timbre" and for that are my choice )

Two speakers or an headphone is enough...No supplementary cost...

Kota gives much interesting information thanks to him but is biased toward unnecessary tools and a bit provocative... I am a bit too  myself sometimes then i will not advise him about that... 😊

I own an old slap phone from 15 years ago....

I hate phone...( yes i need them and appreciate them as a mere TOOL not a toy)

😊

But even a dinosaurus know that it is not necessary to own more than a very good headphone and BACCH filters to enjoy 3-D music...

I apologize to repeat this as an alternative much less costlier proposition for 3-D audio experience... With then minimal connections no new one added and minimal number of components then no new one added and lower noise floor then and a cherry on the cake no timbre distorsions/ modifications as in some other DSP...

Who claim more is better ?

You are right for sure....

I never contradicted that...

But there is  much acoustic information coming from the acoustic trade-off recording of each album which is lost in most stereo system headphone or speakers...

We can retrieve it without lost of the timbre perception...

That is enough for my music goal ... I dont need spectaculaqr complez 7.1 or 5.1 speakers...

thats my point...

Surround is not 3-D...

For this point of view this is revolutionary...

@mahgister I am not questioning the technology which is advanced crosstalk cancellation. I am stating that you cannot hear what is not there. He is marketing when claiming that most "well recorded" music has all this fancy info. It doesn't. You cannot hear spatial information that is not there. That is impossible.

With the BACCH if you read there is no degradation of timbre and the spatialization of the original acoustic trade 0ff of the recording engineer manifest more holographically and clearly in your room with speakers or headphone... There is a special set of psycho-acoustic measures for each listener which made the system personalized for any number of people..

For sure the spatialization is recording dependant and is related to your own acoustic room...

it is not a surround system at all , it is a 3-D system designed first for 2 channels... It is not a gimmick for sound effects it is a new mathematical design to help music perception...

Then any old stereo recording will benefit to some extent ... No need to buy a marginal number of specialized mixed albums for it...

It is a revolution not a gadget...😊

Read the scientific papers of Choueiri... He is a scientist not a marketer...

For me anyone with an already relatively good system can benefit from it in a way any other upgrade will be if not useless throwing his money at the wrong place ...

To understand what it is you must read his science papers and vulgarization...it is not marketing it is acoustic revolution...

Surround sound (home theater ) is not exactly the same as 3-D soundfield as in Choueiri BACCH filters ...

For those who want to read the basic in a short text :

https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=caps_thes_all

This citation comes from a user of BACCH in ASR forum :

«“BACCH is focused on stereo and getting the most out of stereo. We have two ears only and we therefore, in principle, need only two channels to get the cues needed to correctly locate sound in 3D. This is the binaural approach (as opposed to object-based Surround Sound approach) to 3D sound.

Multi-channel Surround Sound (i.e. Dolby 5.1, 7.1, Atmos, Auro3D, etc.), wether channel or object based, is not of interest to us. It is not a focus of research and development at Theoretica (nor is it a topic of academic research in spatial audio, where the main three approaches are: binaural, higher-order-ambisonics, and wavefield synthesis).»

For sure you are right on this...

A way to not antagonize older  dude as me  with stereo system and their  2 speakers is to investigate as you have already begun to  do BACCH filters... Most audiophile have no idea of this revolution...It is all anybody need...

Very few people will transform their house  with Atmos dolby many speakers system...

But they dont need to if they use BACCH...

Because they dont understand that they see  many speakers system as costlier , complicated, artificial, limited , with a sound timbre degradation etc... This is not false especially if it is not well done...

Anyway in spite of your  bad beginnings  with your rash attitude  toward members with no image of their system, you are enthusiastic and communicative ...

😊

For the members that have 0 practical means to try object based audio I would recommend making channel based audio as immersive as possible using room treatments. Whenever I see a pic of a pair of expensive speakers next to a pristine selection of expensive components in a "naked" room it seems like a waste of good equipment. The acoustics in a room are at least 50% of the sound, maybe more.

I already said that  we dont need atmos with BACCH filters...

I predicted  this  technology will disapear or stay marginal   because we can create immersiveness and the illusion of many speakers with only two anyway ...

The majority of music i listen to out of classical and jazz will stay recorded  stereo forever anyway...Indian and persian music ...

No not at all, you can use headphone and walkinng in your room with a complete out of the head experience...

😊

Perhaps.

For more than a song or two, (a few minutes) I absolutely loathe having to listen to music in a "sweet spot",

Im just too restless, so I tend to mull about the room while listening.

This may not likely be a problem with an "object based audio" sytem,

but would certainly eliminate the possibility of using BACCH technology!

Sorry but BACCH filters are not "next big thing " to make customers  throwing money...

If you know how to read a scientific article read Choueiri the BACCH filters design as described by him...

There is BEFORE Bacch filters and AFTER...

It is not a marketting for multichannels upmixers...I will never buy a multichannel system...

it is an acoustic revolution for stereo users too... As i am..

 The difference between stereo  system and multichannel system matter less than the  BACCH filters impactful  revolution...

There is always a next big thing to keep feeding the machines. 

The quarrel between " 70 years old audiophile" as i am with my stereo and so called younger multichannel upmixer users is LUDICROUS...

Looks like those over the age of 70 could care less about Dolby Atmos and are using every excuse in the book to justify their very expensive awesome sounding 2 channel.

+1, and the anger that anyone else can enjoy something that is different than stereo (note, I didn’t say better than stereo, not going there).

Be it stereo or multichannel users , the only factor that matter NOW is : do you have the BACCH filters or not ? Because the only question that matter for 2 channel users and multichannels users is : Is your TIMBRE perception good in your system and how about spatial localisation ?

Two channels or more , the only thing that will improve sound experience to the TOP is the Choueiri invention ....Then why quarrelling ?

Psycho-acoustic is not a fad or a marketing ploy it is pure science...

Then stop arguing in completely outdate debate about 2 channels or more...

I cannot paste the whole page here read why :

https://www.theoretica.us/bacch-dsp/

I will not need more than my headphone if i bought BACCH filters ... HUGELY BETTER LOCALIZATION IN SPACE FOR STEREO USERS

Those with multichannels will enjoy it more...BETTER TIMBRE EXPERIENCE  FOR THEM WITH NO DEGRADATION ...

There is no quarrel , only ignorance as usual ... 😁😊

It seems i was wrong...😁

I apologize to the OP for my intrusion then... 😊

But it is useful for others to be informed...

A revolution in audio for a decade was missed by most audiophiles because of habit i guess...

+1, a BACHH system has advantages over both channel and object based audio, I agree.

I guess the OP has not read about the coupling of BACCH filters and stereo speakers or headphone yet...

No one need atmos after the BACCH filters or even a home theater....

Not only for material cost reason in installation but because of sound quality...

It is the reason i give you this information about BACCH filters ...There is even a new thread about it right now in audiogon...

My 700 bucks system is perfect right now.... I tried to upgrade my amplifier without success so good the Sansui alpha  is... The K340 is the best kept secret in headphone ....  I only need BACCH filters... 😊 You too Kota... But you dont know yet...